Is it a civil war yet?

[Nbadan]

...and the difference in the U.S. staying any longer would be..... they would ....ummm...butcher each other and us?

[Nbadan]

Maybe, the answer is as simple as just changing the mission

"President Bush said today that he will be "flexible" in talks with Iraq's prime minister this week on the war in Iraq, but vowed not to withdraw U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."

Bush also called on countries in the region to contribute to security and stability in Iraq, but took swipes at Syria and Iran for supporting terrorists and extremists."

USA Today

I thought the mission was to topple Saddam and find alleged WMDs and destroy them too. How can you 'complete the mission' when the objective keeps changing?

[ChumpDumper]

RE: the original question -- defense contractor General Electric's news arm says it is.

NBC: Iraq in 'civil war'

Posted 11/27/2006 9:30 PM ET

By Peter Johnson, USA TODAY
The politically charged use of the term "civil war" to describe the violence in Iraq came to a head Monday when NBC News said that the conflict fit its description of a civil war and that NBC would call it that.

The politically charged use of the term "civil war" to describe the violence in Iraq came to a head Monday when NBC News said that the conflict fit its description of a civil war and that NBC would call it that.

The announcement by Today's Matt Lauer put the network at odds with the White House — which said Monday that although the conflict in Iraq is serious, it is not a civil war — and prompted renewed discussion among news outlets.

CBS, ABC, CNN and Fox News said that as sectarian violence has risen, their reporters have called the conflict a civil war, and will continue, though they plan no formal change in policy.

On CNN Monday, correspondent Michael Ware said, "If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is."

Recent dispatches in outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and New York Times also have referred to a civil war. USA TODAY calls the conflict "the war in Iraq" and refers to "sectarian violence or "religious fighting."

Tom McPhail, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri/St. Louis, says NBC's move is "a defining and negative moment" in the war in Iraq, "like when Walter Cronkite said on air that the Vietnam War was lost."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...ivil-war_x.htm

[boutons_]

"thought the mission was to topple Saddam"

mission creep and moving the goalposts is what we have had.

Of course, the over-arching mission was to get dubya re-elected in 2003, and if the phony war would stuff a few 10s of $B profits into energyco and MIC pockets, that would be gravy that would flow by the $Ms back into Repug coffers.

[ChumpDumper]

Colin "Can I Have My Reputation Back" Powell is on board.

Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'
POSTED: 1:13 p.m. EST, November 29, 2006

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq's violence meets the standard of civil war and that if he were heading the State Department now, he might recommend that the administration use that term.

Many news organizations and analysts are calling the Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that exploded this year, killing thousands and causing widespread displacement, a civil war.

Powell's comments -- made in the United Arab Emirates at the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum -- are significant because he backed the war and was the top U.S. diplomat when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. (Watch why some call Iraq's violence a civil war Video)

Bush has avoided using the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq.

Tuesday, he called the latest violence in Iraq "part of a pattern" of attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq to divide Shiites and Sunnis and vowed, again, he won't support the removal of U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said. (Full story)

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley also dismissed the notion that civil war has begun in Iraq.

"The Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war. The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war," Hadley said Monday. "You have not yet had a situation also where you have two clearly defined and opposing groups vying not only for power but for territory."

But he added: "We're clearly in a new phase characterized by an increase in sectarian violence that requires us to adapt to that new phase," according to The Associated Press.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday said that he believes Iraq is near civil war. "Unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said. (Full story)

A spokesman for the powerful political bloc of Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday the group has suspended its participation in Iraq's government. The group had threatened to take such action if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met with President Bush in Jordan this week. Al-Maliki was in Jordan Wednesday with talks scheduled for Thursday.

A classified memo prepared by President's Bush's national security adviser after a recent trip to Iraq questions whether al-Maliki can rise above Iraq's widening and bloody Sunni-Shiite divide. (Watch why some question whether al-Maliki can hold Iraq together Video)

Powell proposed a two-part solution to the problems in Iraq. First, he said, coalition troops must remain, but their numbers must be reduced. Second, a political solution must emerge among Iraqis themselves and not be imposed on them.

In 2003, Powell set out a lengthy argument at the United Nations that buttressed the eventual invasion, including supposed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Asked Wednesday whether he regretted those statements, he said he does. He noted he was working with the information that was available to him at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/

[boutons_]

Whatever it's called, the US is no longer in control (were they ever?) of events in Iraq.

The WH is naturally making a bigger issue of the phrase than of the WH losing Iraq.

The Marines have abandonded, "cut and run"?, Anbar province as lost to Sunnis and al-Quaida, and to pull back to Bagdad.

[ChumpDumper]

Would-be President Newt Gingrich just wants to call it a failure.

Gingrich calls Iraq war a 'failure'
In N.H., says Bush must admit that to regain trust

By James W. Pindell, Globe Correspondent | November 29, 2006

BEDFORD, N.H. -- Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a "failure," it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.

Gingrich, who has been laying the groundwork for a presidential run, said the Bush administration needs to plan a "third stage" in Iraq, following the military takeover stage and the recent democracy-building stage. But he says a third stage can come about only if officials admit they must change course.

"If the military, White House, and State Department continue to avoid the word 'failure,' how can you bring about a third stage?" Gingrich said....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...war_a_failure/

[whottt]

So you agree with Newt? GMTA!


You are in the same circle as both Newt Gingrich and Cindy Sheehan. I think that says everything that needs to be said...Chump.


Congrats

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't see any of them call it a half-assed cluster , but people are catching up to me.

Meanwhile, you're in the same circle as Rumsfeld -- arrogant, wrong and soon to be irrelevant.

Congrats

[whottt]

Oh no, no, no. When you can use Newt to back up your stance? Trust me...you are the one deserving of the congrats....

[ChumpDumper]

So it's a resounding success?

Mission Accomplished?

Exactly as you predicted?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So you agree with Newt? GMTA!


You are in the same circle as both Newt Gingrich and Cindy Sheehan. I think that says everything that needs to be said...Chump.


Congrats

cindy sheehan is some lonely cow that all of the bush-haters got a hold of and she's actually stupid enough to think that they actually care about her. i'm sure she isnt the only parent that has lost a child in the war that she doesn't support and i'm sure she isn't the only pareant that has lost a child in the war that they support. that alone should bring down the curtains on her soapbox. i have utmost respect for everyone that has given their lives for this country, but this country is going to go down the tubes quick if everything thing is going to be set to anti-bush mode. anti-bush mode isn't the answer. i'm not saying pro-bush was, but anti-bush mode definitely isnt the lining in the sky.

[ChumpDumper]

The first goal in Iraq, Gingrich said, should be to rebuild the national military, even if it requires spending tantamount to the Marshall Plan effort in the aftermath of World War II, in which the United States spent up to 3 percent of its gross domestic product.

"We have to show we are serious about winning and that we will defeat any person, Sunni or Shi'ite, that hopes to disrupt progress," he said. "But we can only do that if we have Iraqi troops on the ground."



--not the worst idea I've heard. Where's Bushie's?

[whottt]

So it's a resounding success?

It's not over.

Mission Accomplished?

Saddam's been gone for a while...that was the primary objective.

Exactly as you predicted?

I never expected a quick resolution, nor did I expect it to be easy...I expected culture shock and centuries old issues...I did expect the Iraqis to stand up to the terrorists moreso than they have done...that's what's going to have to happen and sooner or later they have to realize that the problem isn't the US, or the Sunnis or the Shias...it's the entire mindset of eternal warfare and an eye for an eye. They are only ing up their own country. Hopefully the violent ones'll kill each other off...Let them fight.

Let the Israelis and Palestinians fight as well.


I did not expect it to be a quick resolution...and us achieving our goals is an eventuality unless we do one thing...quit. The only way they win is if we quit. The only way we lose is if we quit.





But all that's neither here nor there....the relevant thing here is that you are quoting Newt Gingrich....I think you must be standing to close to the fire and have accidentally inhaled some of the fumes...take a step back, realize you are using Newt Gingrich to claim scoreboard...then try not to die of shame.

[whottt]

No reponse?

Must be out looking for Jerry Falwell quotes to further bolster your stance.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I'm just posting what folks are saying.

I said it was a civil war and a cluster .

You really do hang on my every word.

Disturbing.

[ChumpDumper]

and us achieving our goals is an eventuality unless we do one thing...quit.

What are those goals?

[whottt]

Establishing a Democracy in the Middle East(of the Arab or Muslim variety) to weaken the Islamic Militant Movement and also so the ty Arab leaders can no longer point the finger at the US for their own ty governments.

It's really brain surgery Chump...you have a bunch of dictators in power and life is cheap and there's no such thing as civil rights, or an objective education(for those lucky enough to have any kind), this breeds religious fanatacism(and lots of potential fanatics), and an easily manipulated populace, and that fantatacism is easily directed at the US.


I mean you either realize that freedom of speech and of the press are non-existent and the region is ruled by a bunch of tin pot dictators put in place by Europe or who siezed power militarily, or you don't.

If you do realize that then you realize that the only way to permanently kill the weed is to kill the roots.


Yeah it might be worse right now, but if strong representative Democracy can be put in place somewhere anywhere, only then can the root causes start to change. Only then do you truly reveal the ty leaders for what they are and reduce their ability to mistreat their populations. And if it doesn't work, if they can't be drug into the 21st century yet they have 21st century means to wage destruction...you ing eliminate them using the superior technology that your way of life and enelightened culture has produced.

[ChumpDumper]

Wasn't there a muslim democracy in Pakistan?

And Iran?

What happened to those?

[whottt]

Wasn't there a muslim democracy in Pakistan?

And Iran?

What happened to those?

Ahh there were con utional pseudo Democracies all over the place in the Middle-East once upon a time, in Iraq even...and the quality of life and human rights were much better there then.

Unfortunatley that region was caught in the power struggles of the coldwar and a lot of those Democracies were undermined by Socialist movements...that we either opposed(in Iran) or that did manage to sieze power(in Iraq). But the Militant Islam movement first begat in the 20th century with the PLO was backed by the Soviet Union....as was Iran's so called attempt at Democracy.

Afghanistan once was a cons utional monarchy as well...and you know?

Those countries weren't holes to the degree they are now. And there was no powerful Islamic movement.


What's changed is that

The Soviet Union isn't around to back things anymore and to be the divider...now the only dividers backing the terrorists are Europeans worried about Oil Development rights, and useful idiots, like yourself and most of the rest of the Democratic Party/libs.


I fully expect this to last another 10 years if things go well.

[whottt]

Yeah Pakistan actually once had a female PM...of course it was still more the European type Democracy which isn't truly populis and is still more akin to royalty than what we have here in the states.

[ChumpDumper]

The Soviet Union isn't around to back things anymore and to be the divider.

it's called Russia and it's still there, just depends on Putin's mood.

now the only dividers backing the terrorists are Europeans worried about Oil Development rights, and useful idiots like yourself and most of the rest of the Democratic Party.

And Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and all those dictators you say are there and the inhabitants of Iraq themselves. You underestimated all of these and saw the invasion simply in military terms, and still do (it'll be a cakewalk -- they'll love us and be forever grateful and if they aren't, we just kill em all!).

[ChumpDumper]

I fully expect this to last another 10 years if things go well.

Great, what if we had done things right in the first place?

[whottt]

Ahh some of those leaders are just as afraid of the monster they created as we are...like the Saudis.

While others, like Syria don't know who to be more afraid of...

[whottt]

Great, what if we had done things right in the first place?

Right as in what?

The hatred that is being tapped into now was already in place...I don't know how you expected it to not.


Leaving Saddam's army in place?

That would have been real good, they'd have seized power back immediately and it's very likely we would not have captured Saddam.

This has to run it's course.